Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the importing company and its Managing Director, holding that extended limitation under the Customs Act, 1962 was not invocable as there was no suppression, wilful mis-declaration, or intent to evade duty. The Tribunal noted that Bills of Entry were filed based on manufacturer's invoices/catalogues, the goods were examined by the proper officer, and duty was assessed and paid accordingly. Consequently, the demand of differential customs duty based on the extended period was set aside, though duty, if any, remains payable only for the normal limitation period. CESTAT further held that the goods were not liable to confiscation under s.111(m), thereby setting aside confiscation and redemption fine, and also vacated all penalties imposed on the company and its Managing Director.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the importing company and its Managing Director, holding that extended limitation under the Customs Act, 1962 was not invocable as there was no suppression, wilful mis-declaration, or intent to evade duty. The Tribunal noted that Bills of Entry were filed based on manufacturer's invoices/catalogues, the goods were examined by the proper officer, and duty was assessed and paid accordingly. Consequently, the demand of differential customs duty based on the extended period was set aside, though duty, if any, remains payable only for the normal limitation period. CESTAT further held that the goods were not liable to confiscation under s.111(m), thereby setting aside confiscation and redemption fine, and also vacated all penalties imposed on the company and its Managing Director.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
